Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is enjoying the national attention - and the boost in her electoral chances - she has received since signing controversial anti-immigration measure S.B. 1070 into law.  On Friday, she took another step down that (far) right path, sending a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accusing her of "internationalism run amok" and "unconstitutional(ly)" filing an "international human rights case" against Arizona's (mostly-enjoined) law.

The State Department submitted a 29-page overview of human rights in the U.S., as part of a "review" process of every nation, being conducted by the U.N. Human Rights Commission.  (report here)  Near the bottom - sandwiched between a thumbnail of the 287(g) program and a promise to work on immigration reform - is this mild acknowledgment of the Arizona controversy: 

"95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

This seemingly-innocuous inclusion prompted a Brewer-to-Clinton letter to express her "concern and indignation", to call the paragraph "downright offensive", and to warn her that "the State of Arizona will fight any attempt by the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations to interfere with the duly enacted laws of the State of Arizona in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

Her claim that the mention of the Arizona law is "internationalism run amok and unconstitutional" is based upon the fanciful premise that the federal government is submitting Arizona's law for "'review' by the United Nations".

Of course, Gov. Brewer's record and statements prior to her ascent to stardom in the illegal immigration debate includes no such railings against the UN and U.S. participation in it.  This appears to be election pandering in its purest form.

Here's a fact check analysis of her statments, which concludes that they are "completely misleading".